Find a Lawyer

C. P. S. L. A. No. 615 of 1974, decided on 18th February 1978

‑ Art. 185‑Leave to appeal‑Interlocutory order 3ssed by High ‑Court‑Held, not appeal able to Supreme Court.

Khan M. Yunas Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qurashi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents

,

.‑This petition is directed against the Order of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 83 of 1973, dated 24‑6‑74. Order, which was confirmed after notice.

The dispute between the parties is in respect of a wall, which has been erected by the respondent. It is alleged by the petitioner that there is no passage for the respondent to pass through his land. The learned Civil Judge and the learned District Judge had decided in favour of the petitioner. The matter is now under consideration in Regular Second Appeal No. 83 of 1974. In Civil Miscellaneous No. 1924/C/73 a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has declined to vacate the stay order. In an earlier order dated 31‑5‑74 the High Court had observed that Exh. 4 proved that there is a passage to the north of the plaintiff's lawn, and confirmed the stay order on this ground. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said Order

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner it appears to us the petition for special leave to appeal had been filed against an interlocutory order. No appeal lay against such an order. We do not, therefore, consider this as a fit case for appeal to this Court:

Moreover, as .has been pointed by the High Court, Exh. P shows that there is a passage to the north of the plaintiff's lawn. Prima facie therefore, there was good ground for the High Court to confirm the stay order. There is no force in this petition. The petition is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.